Giltric:Communist_Manifesto: As a gun owner in Colorado I am not impacted by either of these measures so it doesn't matter to me at all.

When they came for the jews...I was not a jew so I did not care.

+1 for boot licking.

Small difference between limiting capacity sizes and the holocaust. The only bad thing that happened is that you have to reload more often and you now have to prove that a mag of over 15 rounds was yours prior to the ban which isn't that big of a deal for a law abiding gun owner. I have no illusions about the guns I own, they're their in case someone breaks into my house and that's it. You might have a fantasy where you're going to go fight tyranny along with all of your other viking warrior brethren when the government comes around to take your gun, I have however watched the videos of drones blowing people away with assault rifles in Afghanistan and know who is going to win that fight when it comes.

EViLTeW:Caffandtranqs: EViLTeW: Caffandtranqs: Here we go again with this shiat. It's unconstitutional because the Consitution has not been updated with an ammendment pertinent to this farking century. You could make a case for having a damn cannon to be at your house with the way the way the Constitution is written out about this. These farking idiots can't seem to get past the year 1791 when it comes to this issue.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What has changed in that time frame as relating to this text?

Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to own cannons? I know a few people that have them and fire them (charge only) on random holidays. Is that wrong, legally? I'm sure a few people might argue the noise is a bit much, but not any louder than fireworks typically being launched around the same time.

You don't know what has changed in this country since 1791? Oh boy. I was using it as an example. The broad description allows for all sorts of weaponry that is not good for people to have...such as grenades or tommy guns. Acccording to the Constitution, not allowing people to have these things is infringing on their rights, right?

You chose to ignore the "as relating to this text" part of my question, how surprising. Why shouldn't someone own a Tommy gun, again? As for the grenade, it's cute how you threw in an explosive to make your argument seem even scarier. A person wishing to utilize an explosive device to harm others can make ones that are far, far more powerful than a grenade and you aren't going to run around banning cleaning chemicals or raw black powder, are you? Ban fireworks so a criminal couldn't tear them all apart and take the powder?

Exactly, they don't ban the chemicals used to make homemade bombs, but they do make getting large quantities of the chemicals difficult. The ATF, ICE, and Homeland Security track the sale of all those things and regularly bust people if they are ordering large quantities of the stuff. Where are you? Fireworks ARE banned in certain places because of the destructive nature of them. How does adding a tommy gun to the argument make it appear scary. They ARE illegal guns because of their killing capacity. The country learned all about that in the "glory days" of the mafia. And yet, according to gun fans, that should be unconstitutional, but it does not bother you guys because you've never played with one, so you have no feelings about tommy guns.

Giltric:Cheviot: Here's the problem. You transfer a gun without the background check, but you bought it from the gun shop. They know it's yours. Now, 10 years down the line the gun is used in a crime. They come back to the registered owner and ask about the gun.

So they are disregarding the Firearm Owners Protection Act?

Absolutely not. The act prevents the government from maintaining such a database. The gun shop is not the government.

How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?

So you'd prefer that a law discriminate against the poor, rather than on race? Tell me, do you think you should have to pay the government to exercise your rights? Or is the 2nd amendment somehow different?

What is the fee to apply for a permit that allows you to hold a concert in Central Park?

Why would something held in a public venue be applicable or comparable to something owned and held at home? Now if you want to compare carrying a gun in public to holding a concert in public, go ahead.

My point was that we already have to sometimes pay to exercise our rights. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it already happens a whole lot.

That's fine. Your comparison was just off. Public application of rights is totally different than private application of rights, even if the gun can obviously be used in a public setting.

tom baker's scarf:Please. the cops are already not looking to arrest anyone over this. Could most mags be modified to hold more than 15 rounds sure, if you cut out the bottom, wield or tape on another mag with a longer feeder spring etc but that's like saying if I'm transporting two cases of liquor I'm under suspicion of selling it without a license.

That's the language of the law. Of course, if it were only selectively enforced...

If on the other hand officer Lou opens your trunk and finds a bunch of mags with the bottoms cut off or there is just a removable plug so the 100 round drum can only hold 15 rounds while the plug is installed then you're obviously violating the law and should be detained.

Or they are grandfathered magazines. So there would have to be an investigation to see if they are legal. Which is also true if you didn't selectively enforce the law and saw anyone with a magazine fed gun.

So yes, lots of manpower is required to investigate those things if you follow the letter of the law.

Caffandtranqs:EViLTeW: Caffandtranqs: EViLTeW: Caffandtranqs: Here we go again with this shiat. It's unconstitutional because the Consitution has not been updated with an ammendment pertinent to this farking century. You could make a case for having a damn cannon to be at your house with the way the way the Constitution is written out about this. These farking idiots can't seem to get past the year 1791 when it comes to this issue.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What has changed in that time frame as relating to this text?

Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to own cannons? I know a few people that have them and fire them (charge only) on random holidays. Is that wrong, legally? I'm sure a few people might argue the noise is a bit much, but not any louder than fireworks typically being launched around the same time.

You don't know what has changed in this country since 1791? Oh boy. I was using it as an example. The broad description allows for all sorts of weaponry that is not good for people to have...such as grenades or tommy guns. Acccording to the Constitution, not allowing people to have these things is infringing on their rights, right?

You chose to ignore the "as relating to this text" part of my question, how surprising. Why shouldn't someone own a Tommy gun, again? As for the grenade, it's cute how you threw in an explosive to make your argument seem even scarier. A person wishing to utilize an explosive device to harm others can make ones that are far, far more powerful than a grenade and you aren't going to run around banning cleaning chemicals or raw black powder, are you? Ban fireworks so a criminal couldn't tear them all apart and take the powder?

Exactly, they don't ban the chemicals used to make homemade bombs, but they do make getting large quantities of the chemicals difficult. The ATF, ICE, and Homeland Security track th ...

That's the point I was trying to make earlier. Constitutionally, what's the difference between a 30-round limit and a 15-round limit. Either the Constitution allows for limits or it doesn't. I don't see anyone taking California's annoying 10-round limit to the Supreme Court, so I guess limits are Constitutional.

The "unenforceable" argument sounds like it has merit. The "unconstitutional" argument does not.

How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?

So you'd prefer that a law discriminate against the poor, rather than on race? Tell me, do you think you should have to pay the government to exercise your rights? Or is the 2nd amendment somehow different?

Someone is gonna pay for the background check - might as well be the user. I have no problem throwing it on a sliding scale so the poor can get a break, but it isn't tearing the constitution asunder if we don't. I'd like a free passport, but I have to pay for that thing. The accused have a right to counsel, doesn't mean everyone gets it free. Just because something is a right, that doesn't mean it's free, that's a well established principal of law.

Nadie_AZ:cman: cman: Dixon Cider: I live near this asshole and hope he gets fired soon!

Farking conservatives thinks it's OK to break the law, if it is something they want. But ask for Equal Rights for Brown or Gay people and HOLY shiat, your asking fro crimes against humanity!!

Sheriffs are elected officials. I dont know how they do it in Colorado, so maybe you can answer me this. Can the state remove a Sheriff from power? The only ways that I could think of that the state could fire him is if the Sheriff were convicted of a crime

WOW did I fark that up.

Fixt spelling

And here I thought the only way to remove a sheriff was to have him die.

/lives in sheriff joe's county//i do remember his predecessor, however

If it wasn't for him to screw up the Buddhist(?) temple murders we wouldn't have Sheriff "Nickle Bag Joe" Arpaio.

Caffandtranqs:EViLTeW: Caffandtranqs: EViLTeW: Caffandtranqs: Here we go again with this shiat. It's unconstitutional because the Consitution has not been updated with an ammendment pertinent to this farking century. You could make a case for having a damn cannon to be at your house with the way the way the Constitution is written out about this. These farking idiots can't seem to get past the year 1791 when it comes to this issue.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What has changed in that time frame as relating to this text?

Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to own cannons? I know a few people that have them and fire them (charge only) on random holidays. Is that wrong, legally? I'm sure a few people might argue the noise is a bit much, but not any louder than fireworks typically being launched around the same time.

You don't know what has changed in this country since 1791? Oh boy. I was using it as an example. The broad description allows for all sorts of weaponry that is not good for people to have...such as grenades or tommy guns. Acccording to the Constitution, not allowing people to have these things is infringing on their rights, right?

You chose to ignore the "as relating to this text" part of my question, how surprising. Why shouldn't someone own a Tommy gun, again? As for the grenade, it's cute how you threw in an explosive to make your argument seem even scarier. A person wishing to utilize an explosive device to harm others can make ones that are far, far more powerful than a grenade and you aren't going to run around banning cleaning chemicals or raw black powder, are you? Ban fireworks so a criminal couldn't tear them all apart and take the powder?

Exactly, they don't ban the chemicals used to make homemade bombs, but they do make getting large quantities of the chemicals difficult. The ATF, ICE, and Homeland Security track th ...

Tommy Guns aren't illegal on a federal level, just highly regulated. They are illegal in some states though, since the states have a ban on NFA weapons. However tommy guns were theoretically banned because they were not in common use and of no use to the militia, not because they looked scary.

DROxINxTHExWIND:Ow! That was my feelings!: DROxINxTHExWIND: Sheriff: I will NOT be supporting these gun control laws that will cause undue harm to law-abiding citizens by requiring them to pay a $12 registration fee...

...but if your ass gets caught with so much as a gram of marijuana, so help me GOD, I will use every tool at my disposal to make sure that the prosecutor can bury your ass under years of supervised probation. I'll also be there to honor the warrant for your arrest if you miss ONE payment to the court for your probation costs and court costs. I don't give a shiat how the missed days from work affects your ability to pay. Die, hippy.

He is a sheriff in Colorado. Think about that and your comment for a second.

The SHERIFFS didn't legalize marijuana in Colorado. Elected officials did. The same elected officials that this sheriff plans to ignore regarding gun control. Whats stopping him from deciding that MJ should remain illegal and going on a rampage to round up smokers?

I guess nothing except that voters in his district don't want him too. The voters in his district don't support the current gun control push either, he is being responsive to their wishes.

Mr. Titanium:The Sheriff says the laws are unenforceable. How is it unenforceable to charge for a background check? If you don't get paid, you don't do the check. Seems pretty simple to enforce.

All right, I'll explain it for you:

How does a police officer, who just happens to come across a citizen with a firearm, have probable cause to know that the firearm that citizen is carrying was or was not transferred according to this universal background check law?

The citizen has Fifth Amendment protection against incriminating himself, so he can just clam up.

The citizen has Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, unless the officer has probable cause, which the officer could not have without doing an illegal search.

Let's suppose that the officer has some reasonable reason to stop and search the citizen that will hold up in a court of law. The office finds that the firearm in the citizen's possession was not transferred via the Universal Background Check. What probable cause does the officer have that the firearm was transferred after the effective date of the law in the state of Colorado?

If the firearm was transferred before the effective date, it was not a criminal act.

If it was transferred to the individual in another state without the universal background check requirement and he subsequently moved to Colorado, this was not a criminal act.

Hypothetically, the firearm may be the property of a trust, of which the citizen is a trustee. The trustee can use, carry and possess any firearm in the trust in his role as a trustee, and turn them over to another trustee without there being a transfer involved. (I have this kind of arrangement.)

As there are entirely plausible explanations for the circumstances, which cannot be disproven by the information that the officer has at hand, he does not have probable cause that a crime has occurred. If Officer Hard-ass has been trained by his department to arrest anyone with a firearm that isn't recorded as being transferred through the UBC system, there will be high proportion of arrests where the burden of probable cause can't be upheld, and the department will be sued into bankruptcy.

That's what the sheriff means by unenforceable. Even with instant access to the state UBC record system for the police officer on the street, the officers can't make an arrest that will support a prosecution that has any chance of resulting in a conviction.

Furthermore, if the person in possession of the firearm is a prohibited person, he can't be prosecuted for not going through a background check. That's already established US Supreme Court precedent, Haynes vs US (1968). You can prosecute him for being a prohibited person in possession, but you can't prosecute him for not going through a background check.

Caffandtranqs:How does adding a tommy gun to the argument make it appear scary. They ARE illegal guns because of their killing capacity.

An automatic Thompson with a 50 round magazine has the same "killing capacity" as a 50 round semi-automatic Thompson. Just because something is "automatic" doesn't magically enchant the bullets into +5 bullets of killing. Automatic weapons aren't used for gunning down huge swaths of people, but for suppression. I'd argue that you'd be able to full far more people with a semi-automatic weapon since they are much more accurate than just fully-automatic weapons.

DROxINxTHExWIND:The SHERIFFS didn't legalize marijuana in Colorado. Elected officials did. The same elected officials that this sheriff plans to ignore regarding gun control. Whats stopping him from deciding that MJ should remain illegal and going on a rampage to round up smokers?

One situation would be ignoring an existing law, the other would be enforcing a law that doesn't exist. They are not really the same.

I approve of this story. I disapprove of anyone taking my rights to own high-powered weapons, high-capacity magazines, and my AP and HP ammo. I hunt deer, duck, quail, and bears. I *need* all of this stuff!

pudding7:Caffandtranqs: EViLTeW: Caffandtranqs: EViLTeW: Caffandtranqs: Here we go again with this shiat. It's unconstitutional because the Consitution has not been updated with an ammendment pertinent to this farking century. You could make a case for having a damn cannon to be at your house with the way the way the Constitution is written out about this. These farking idiots can't seem to get past the year 1791 when it comes to this issue.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What has changed in that time frame as relating to this text?

Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to own cannons? I know a few people that have them and fire them (charge only) on random holidays. Is that wrong, legally? I'm sure a few people might argue the noise is a bit much, but not any louder than fireworks typically being launched around the same time.

You don't know what has changed in this country since 1791? Oh boy. I was using it as an example. The broad description allows for all sorts of weaponry that is not good for people to have...such as grenades or tommy guns. Acccording to the Constitution, not allowing people to have these things is infringing on their rights, right?

You chose to ignore the "as relating to this text" part of my question, how surprising. Why shouldn't someone own a Tommy gun, again? As for the grenade, it's cute how you threw in an explosive to make your argument seem even scarier. A person wishing to utilize an explosive device to harm others can make ones that are far, far more powerful than a grenade and you aren't going to run around banning cleaning chemicals or raw black powder, are you? Ban fireworks so a criminal couldn't tear them all apart and take the powder?

Exactly, they don't ban the chemicals used to make homemade bombs, but they do make getting large quantities of the chemicals difficult. The ATF, ICE, and Homeland Se ...

I'd be okay with saying that common use limits in accordance with Miller are fine. If a gun is in common use, the standard militia magazine size makes sense. Semi-auto rifles like the AR-15 have had 30 round capacities since they were introduced. Handguns routinely come with capacities of 15+

How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?

So you'd prefer that a law discriminate against the poor, rather than on race? Tell me, do you think you should have to pay the government to exercise your rights? Or is the 2nd amendment somehow different?

Someone is gonna pay for the background check - might as well be the user. I have no problem throwing it on a sliding scale so the poor can get a break, but it isn't tearing the constitution asunder if we don't. I'd like a free passport, but I have to pay for that thing. The accused have a right to counsel, doesn't mean everyone gets it free. Just because something is a right, that doesn't mean it's free, that's a well established principal of law.

So if the government signed into law declaring that you'd need to pay $100 to vote, that'd be constitutional to you? You know, because something is a right, that doesn't mean it's free.

It's nice to see that all of you libitards have found your soul mates. The rest of us prefer you keep to your sunshine and unicorn infested paradise and away from the rest of us who have grown up stuff to talk about.

GUTSU:You have never been to a gun show, and I doubt you are any sort of reasonable person. Why do you demonize people you've never met? Why do you assume people selling firearms are shady characters? Do you assume the same thing about people having yard sales, or selling a used car? Or should people not be allowed to sell their own property without government intervention?

Anti-gun hysteria is the new Reefer Madness. In both cases you have a group that has never personally seen or used the item in question but loudly and ignorantly make outrageous claims about how it will turn you into a homicidal rapist if you use it.

Hopefully it will work out the same way and fifty years from now we will be laughing our asses off at these tards.

redmid17:pudding7: Caffandtranqs: EViLTeW: Caffandtranqs: EViLTeW: Caffandtranqs: Here we go again with this shiat. It's unconstitutional because the Consitution has not been updated with an ammendment pertinent to this farking century. You could make a case for having a damn cannon to be at your house with the way the way the Constitution is written out about this. These farking idiots can't seem to get past the year 1791 when it comes to this issue.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What has changed in that time frame as relating to this text?

Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to own cannons? I know a few people that have them and fire them (charge only) on random holidays. Is that wrong, legally? I'm sure a few people might argue the noise is a bit much, but not any louder than fireworks typically being launched around the same time.

You don't know what has changed in this country since 1791? Oh boy. I was using it as an example. The broad description allows for all sorts of weaponry that is not good for people to have...such as grenades or tommy guns. Acccording to the Constitution, not allowing people to have these things is infringing on their rights, right?

You chose to ignore the "as relating to this text" part of my question, how surprising. Why shouldn't someone own a Tommy gun, again? As for the grenade, it's cute how you threw in an explosive to make your argument seem even scarier. A person wishing to utilize an explosive device to harm others can make ones that are far, far more powerful than a grenade and you aren't going to run around banning cleaning chemicals or raw black powder, are you? Ban fireworks so a criminal couldn't tear them all apart and take the powder?

Exactly, they don't ban the chemicals used to make homemade bombs, but they do make getting large quantities of the chemicals difficult. The ATF, ICE, and H ...

So then you would argue that California's 10-round magazine limit is unconstitutional?

lude:It's nice to see that all of you libitards have found your soul mates. The rest of us prefer you keep to your sunshine and unicorn infested paradise and away from the rest of us who have grown up stuff to talk about.

//lude

I'd prefer if cities were more like city states, were senators from them affected only those cities, while the rural parts governed themselves.Then they'd get their gun free utopias, and I could buy myself as many moist nuggets as my heart desired.Moist nugget = Mosin-Nagant

umad:GUTSU: You have never been to a gun show, and I doubt you are any sort of reasonable person. Why do you demonize people you've never met? Why do you assume people selling firearms are shady characters? Do you assume the same thing about people having yard sales, or selling a used car? Or should people not be allowed to sell their own property without government intervention?

Anti-gun hysteria is the new Reefer Madness. In both cases you have a group that has never personally seen or used the item in question but loudly and ignorantly make outrageous claims about how it will turn you into a homicidal rapist if you use it.

Hopefully it will work out the same way and fifty years from now we will be laughing our asses off at these tards.

You're not kidding. A friend of mine had a neice that was killed at Sandy Hook. She (the friend) is a lawyer and she's a tiny bit well-connected in state politics. Since Sandy Hook, she's been on a tear to adopt more gun control laws. When she started talking about her plans, the first thing I told her was that she needed to seriously educate herself about guns. Guns, guns, guns, all things guns.

Buy gun magazines, read gun blogs, go shoot guns. Because the first time she makes a mistake and calls a magazine a clip, or demonstrates that she doesn't know know the difference between full and semi-auto, every comment or argument she makes will be instantly dismissed by any gun-rights advocate she's talking to.

How is having to pay for your background check usurping the constitution?

How is having to pay a poll tax infringing on your ability to vote?

Because poll tax laws were written to discriminate based on race. And they were extremely effective. By having exceptions from the tax for people who voted in the previous election, etc. Unless there is discrimination based on a protected class I don't see the problem with the user paying for the "well-regulated" portion of the constitution. Again, where is the usurpation?

So you'd prefer that a law discriminate against the poor, rather than on race? Tell me, do you think you should have to pay the government to exercise your rights? Or is the 2nd amendment somehow different?

Someone is gonna pay for the background check - might as well be the user. I have no problem throwing it on a sliding scale so the poor can get a break, but it isn't tearing the constitution asunder if we don't. I'd like a free passport, but I have to pay for that thing. The accused have a right to counsel, doesn't mean everyone gets it free. Just because something is a right, that doesn't mean it's free, that's a well established principal of law.

So if the government signed into law declaring that you'd need to pay $100 to vote, that'd be constitutional to you? You know, because something is a right, that doesn't mean it's free.

I see. Your beef is going to be with the Supreme Court then. Good luck taking it up with them..

pudding7:redmid17: pudding7: Caffandtranqs: EViLTeW: Caffandtranqs: EViLTeW: Caffandtranqs: Here we go again with this shiat. It's unconstitutional because the Consitution has not been updated with an ammendment pertinent to this farking century. You could make a case for having a damn cannon to be at your house with the way the way the Constitution is written out about this. These farking idiots can't seem to get past the year 1791 when it comes to this issue.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What has changed in that time frame as relating to this text?

Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to own cannons? I know a few people that have them and fire them (charge only) on random holidays. Is that wrong, legally? I'm sure a few people might argue the noise is a bit much, but not any louder than fireworks typically being launched around the same time.

You don't know what has changed in this country since 1791? Oh boy. I was using it as an example. The broad description allows for all sorts of weaponry that is not good for people to have...such as grenades or tommy guns. Acccording to the Constitution, not allowing people to have these things is infringing on their rights, right?

You chose to ignore the "as relating to this text" part of my question, how surprising. Why shouldn't someone own a Tommy gun, again? As for the grenade, it's cute how you threw in an explosive to make your argument seem even scarier. A person wishing to utilize an explosive device to harm others can make ones that are far, far more powerful than a grenade and you aren't going to run around banning cleaning chemicals or raw black powder, are you? Ban fireworks so a criminal couldn't tear them all apart and take the powder?

Exactly, they don't ban the chemicals used to make homemade bombs, but they do make getting large quantities of the chemicals difficult. The ATF, ...

If you could get the courts to recognize Miller, I think you could advance the argument pretty far. They are clearly in common use and the Army uses those size of magazines for a reason.

Darth_Lukecash:umad: EdNortonsTwin: Maybe they shouldn't be bothered to swear to uphold the Constitution either. Yea, about that old document.

The same one that says "shall not be infringed?" Maybe he is.

Clip limit does not infringe on an ownership of a weapon. You an Scalia can ignore the "Well Regulated Militia" part.

We can argue what that comma in the 2nd Amendment meant, all day. I personally don't believe it meant you had or have to be in a militia to own a firearm.

Magazine (see clip) limits may infringe, as gun magazine is considered to be part of the firearm itself. For example, if you have your magazine loaded but removed from the rest of the firearm and are found with both inside the car - you can be charged with transporting a loaded firearm. At least here in California.

I think you'll need an Amendment to the Constitution / Bill of Rights here.

Earl of Chives:I see. Your beef is going to be with the Supreme Court then. Good luck taking it up with them..

Hey, you agreed that there is a price for exercising your rights, all that we're doing is talking about the price. I myself won't have to take it up, there are plenty of other people willing to carry that torch.

Great Janitor:Good. We need more people like him to stand up and say no.

The problems with the laws that he's against is that they only make it harder for law abiding people to get guns and will deter more law abiding people to get guns. It's going to do nothing about guns that are acquired illegally or out of state. I want to see more law enforcement officers around the nation say no to these laws.

THIS.

I don't buy for a moment that the people in this thread saying "ohh these sheriffs choosing to not enforce CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws are bad bad men, we should recall them" are real people at all. On the contrary I'm pretty sure that they're a bunch of government plants that are simply trying to stear the tone of this thread by having the same opinions repeated endlessly in an echo chamber.

The fact is, most people are smart enough to realize that making guns harder to get for legal citizens does NOTHING to deter criminals. Ya see here's the thing, criminals... they break laws... it's sorta what they do. That's why they're criminals.

So will laws that target law abiding citizens... they really won't do shiat to deter criminals acquiring guns.

The sheriffs realize this... and they are doing the intelligent thing, they are choosing to take the teeth out of the law at the source, by refusing to enforce them.

Those of you calling for them to enforce these laws... well then hell... lets force ICE to do ITS farking job too. Deport all illegals. After all theyre choosing not to enforce the law when they don't seize all illegals and deport them. Oh wait, you've got no problem with them not enforcing this law, me either... so gee... maybe them not enforcing some laws is a good thing eh?

odinsposse:tom baker's scarf: Please. the cops are already not looking to arrest anyone over this. Could most mags be modified to hold more than 15 rounds sure, if you cut out the bottom, wield or tape on another mag with a longer feeder spring etc but that's like saying if I'm transporting two cases of liquor I'm under suspicion of selling it without a license.

That's the language of the law. Of course, if it were only selectively enforced...

they are allowed to use logic and common sense. Just as transporting a couple of case of liquor doesn't automatically trigger "he's an illegal vendor" carrying two legal, unmodified mags wouldn't trigger "OMG he's gonna make a 30 round mag because he could, maybe, someday, let's get him."

If on the other hand officer Lou opens your trunk and finds a bunch of mags with the bottoms cut off or there is just a removable plug so the 100 round drum can only hold 15 rounds while the plug is installed then you're obviously violating the law and should be detained.

Or they are grandfathered magazines. So there would have to be an investigation to see if they are legal. Which is also true if you didn't selectively enforce the law and saw anyone with a magazine fed gun.

Which is a problem the gun junkies bring on themselves. If the law makers had said, "bring in your old mags and we'll stamp them (or exchange them for a stamped version) so we know they are grandfathered. You've got 240 days, after that it's as if you own a gun with the SN filed off." the tinfoil hat crowd would scream "OMG Obama is monitoring my every move!!!" Or the law could have been written such that possession of the mags is against the law period. It's been done before. Sometimes quasi-legal things become illegal and you don't get to keep them, even if you really, really like them.

Since the gun junkies can't get behind even the most simple, logical, reasonable reforms they are getting left behind. Keep biatching about easy to live with laws and eventually the possession of unregistered item X laws will start to come on the books.

So yes, lots of manpower is required to investigate those things if you follow the letter of the law.

Yes if you insist on doing things the hard way it is, wait for it, hard.

pudding7:Caffandtranqs: EViLTeW: Caffandtranqs: EViLTeW: Caffandtranqs: Here we go again with this shiat. It's unconstitutional because the Consitution has not been updated with an ammendment pertinent to this farking century. You could make a case for having a damn cannon to be at your house with the way the way the Constitution is written out about this. These farking idiots can't seem to get past the year 1791 when it comes to this issue.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What has changed in that time frame as relating to this text?

Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to own cannons? I know a few people that have them and fire them (charge only) on random holidays. Is that wrong, legally? I'm sure a few people might argue the noise is a bit much, but not any louder than fireworks typically being launched around the same time.

You don't know what has changed in this country since 1791? Oh boy. I was using it as an example. The broad description allows for all sorts of weaponry that is not good for people to have...such as grenades or tommy guns. Acccording to the Constitution, not allowing people to have these things is infringing on their rights, right?

You chose to ignore the "as relating to this text" part of my question, how surprising. Why shouldn't someone own a Tommy gun, again? As for the grenade, it's cute how you threw in an explosive to make your argument seem even scarier. A person wishing to utilize an explosive device to harm others can make ones that are far, far more powerful than a grenade and you aren't going to run around banning cleaning chemicals or raw black powder, are you? Ban fireworks so a criminal couldn't tear them all apart and take the powder?

Exactly, they don't ban the chemicals used to make homemade bombs, but they do make getting large quantities of the chemicals difficult. The ATF, ICE, and Homeland Se ...